M/S VITARI DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(5), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2267/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 March 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Income-tax Department.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee claimed they did not receive the notice of hearing, leading to their non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex-parte without proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee is sustainable. Whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 16.03.2020

O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore passed under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the Asst Year 2010-11&2011-12.

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has passed exparte orders for the Asst Year 2010-11&2011-12 2 & 2268/Bang/2018 without considering the submissions of the assessee and prayed for one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case before the appellate authority. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the CIT (Appeals).

3.

We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the CIT(Appeals) order, we find that the assessee was provided opportunity of hearing on 14.07.2014. But, when a query was raised to the learned AR for the reasonable cause and reasons for non-appearance on date of hearing, the explanations of ldAr, that notice of hearing was not received by the assessee and therefore the assessee was not aware of date of posting of the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice and the reasons envisaged by learned AR, we consider it appropriate to restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) but considering the facts on record with respect to non-appearance of the assessee or authorized representative in spite of posting the case in appellate proceedings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be provided an opportunity of hearing with payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Income-tax Department within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, we set-aside the order of Cit(A) and restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits a fresh and pass a speaking order. Further, the assessee shall submit proof of payment of 3 ITA Nos.2267 & 2268/Bang/2018 cost with Tribunal and appellate authority. It is nevertheless to mention that the CIT(A) should be provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file details and the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and we order accordingly.

6.

In the result, the assessee's appeals for the Asst Year 2010-11&2011-12 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →